Creative Writing – The Hobbit: Movie vs. Book

Well, I’m warning you up front that I’m about to stomp on the childhood memories of many of you who frequent, and even write for Short Fiction Break. But I do it because I love you.

I’m one of those rare birds who hadn’t read Tolkien’s The Hobbit, during my misspent youth. But after having seen Peter Jackson’s epic trilogy, and LOVING it, I decided to go back and check out the book that started it all. The result I’m sad to say, was less than thrilling.

Look, I get that for many of you, there’s a nostalgic factor when it comes to this novel, and some of you may even have enjoyed it with your very own children. But for me, The Hobbit was a chore to get through, not because it was difficult, but because it was clumsy, and frankly a bit convoluted.

In all honesty, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit does a superior job of telling the story of Bilbo Baggins, far better than the book does. First off, Jackson creates a cohesive story, with tons of tension, and a whole boatload of characters that we are emotionally invested in. On top of all that, he brings the film full circle, ending his Hobbit trilogy where The Lord of the Rings begins —it was sheer brilliance.

The book, on the other hand, lacks an emotional connection to any of its characters; the antagonists are adversaries that I didn’t really love or hate; I just felt indifferent toward them. And it shouldn’t have been this way, considering this is a story that includes a giant dragon, and beastly creatures like the Orks. And as far as Bilbo is concerned, in Tolkien’s tale he is wholly uninteresting. This wonderful protagonist in the movie, is almost lost in the minutia of a book that uses a lot of words, and still doesn’t tell an effective story.

If there is no tension, or nothing to overcome, whether large or small, what you’ve got is a story with no meat, nothing to sink your teeth into. When I was finished with The Hobbit, it left me wanting so much more. In fact, after I turned that final page, all I wanted to do was watch the movies again.

In the film we cared about Bilbo, the dwarves, the people of Lake Town, the elves, and appropriately hated the evil that came amongst them. These characters had depth, and were three dimensional beings who spoke to us. The most disappointing thing for me in the book, was when Thorin died. That loss should’ve been as heartbreaking as it was in the film, but it wasn’t because I never got to know Thorin in any personal way. His death was just the result of the battle —the end. By this point in the book, I just didn’t care any longer. And that’s too bad, because this is a wonderful story, and Peter Jackson was able to flesh it out in a way that made me love it, in spite of the book.

This isn’t a knock on Tolkien as a writer, it’s obvious that dude had some mad skills, but his book is a children’s book; and Jackson’s film is for adults who loved the story as a child. So of course the characterizations in the book would be watered down, the story not as fleshed out, and the reason Peter Jackson’s film wasn’t simply a re-tread of the book.

Now, I know you might think I’m being too hard on this beloved book, and maybe I am, but that’s because my expectations were very high. I heard so many good things about the novel, listened to the gripes and complaints from readers of the book who were furious with Peter Jackson for not making his film exactly like Tolkien’s original story. These were things I didn’t hear from those same folks who read the Lord of the Ring series, and loved those films. So I thought, this book would be the most masterful piece of writing ever, and Jackson just blew it.

Well it isn’t, and he didn’t.

If The Hobbit is one of those books you love, great, because Peter Jackson does as well. But he was able to take his love for the story and make it even better; a rare feat for a film. So you picky Tolkien fans, get over the fact that it didn’t follow the book exactly, that Azog died long before he does in the film, and that there was no specific Tauriel character. Those are minimal changes that in no real definitive way changes the story you loved as a child.

I think as time goes by, people will analyze the Jackson movies more objectively, and will see that The Hobbit films are perfect examples of great movie making.

Go on, watch The Hobbit again, I dare ya. But this time watch without the cloud of nostalgia hanging overhead. Watch them and remember that books bring out the imagination of the reader in a uniquely personal way that movies can’t. No two people will see the same story in the same way.

That’s the beauty of art, it’s subjective. We take it in though our own experiences and filters, and apply our own personal meaning to it. So give Mr. Jackson a break please, he is an obvious lover of the Tolkien story, he simply meshed the author’s vision with his own, and in my opinion the results are masterful.

And that’s how it’s done in the Shire.

~Welcome to a monthly look at the art of creative writing from all kinds of mediums: Books, music, movies, television, and anything else I can think of. If you have any ideas please feel free to offer them in the comments below. I hope you find it helpful as well as entertaining ~AN

About Alice Nelson

Alice Nelson is a regular contributor to Short Fiction Break. She currently co-hosts a flash fiction podcast called A Creative Mind Fiction, where she narrates her original stories. She also co-moderates a flash fiction writing group. She is the author of Hell Is for Puppies, a horror-filled collection of short stories. You can hear more of her writing here.

Comments

I enjoyed both the book and the movie series, despite the fact that Jackson has tinkered with the story a bit. It’s done all the time, and often to great effect. For example, read “The Cider House Rules,” then watch the movie. Or “Forrest Gump.” Both are great books AND great movies, but the books and movies are almost completely different.

I do disagree that the book “lacks an emotional connection to any of its characters,” but I guess that’s exactly how subjectivity works — I felt the emotional connection, you didn’t. Likewise your statement, “If there is no tension, or nothing to overcome, whether large or small, what you’ve got is a story with no meat, nothing to sink your teeth into.” It seemed to me that there was plenty of tension, and lots to overcome, both large and small.

Anyway, if your point was that the book is inferior to the movies, I disagree. But if your point was that people should go easy on Peter Jackson for messing around with a beloved book, I agree.

I thought so, most of the criticism I’ve heard about the Hobbit films come from people who have that long connection with the book, it holds a special place for them. Nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia, we all have those books and movies that we love regardless of when we read or see them. Thanks Scott!

I can’t comment on the movie(s), I haven’t seen them, but having read the trilogy, start to finish, twice, I have to agree, reluctantly, with you. Tolkien’s true genius was in the scope of his world building (the trilogy plus the Silmarillion.) His legacy? When Tolkien first presented his ring saga to his publisher, it was a single book, more than a thousand pages long, and the publisher concluded, probably correctly, that it wouldn’t sell. Thus was born the trilogy, and the frustration of people like myself, ardent fans of fantasy and sci fi who wish our genres had more stand-along books and fewer trilogies, and who need always be vigilant, lest we inadvertently take home book 2 or 3 of a threesome without ever having read book 1, or who search vainly for book 2 or 3 of what looks like a promising saga.

Hi again, Alice. Just to clarify, when you said, “most of the criticism I’ve heard about the Hobbit films come from people who have that long connection with the book,” that doesn’t apply to me because I wasn’t criticizing the movies. At all. I absolutely loved the movies. But I also loved the book.

I guess what I disagree with (and this is where subjectivity enters the picture) is your statement: “Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit does a superior job of telling the story of Bilbo Baggins, far better than the book does.” I think they both do a good job.

Alice, I am a deep lover of all of Tolkien’s works. I even love the stories he either never finished or never bothered to try to publish, which his son, Christopher, for whom the Hobbit was originally written as a bedtime story, has spent most of his life bringing to readable life all the myriad stories of the social background of Middle Earth. I read the Hobbit in the 7th grade and finished my 7th reading of the then existent series of novels before I graduated high school. While I found the Hobbit easy to read in the 7th grade, I must agree with you on how boring and convoluted Tolkien’s writing could be. I have been an avid Anglophile with regards to general literature since the 5th grade (yes, I was a very early reader and was a snitching adult literate, both appropriate and non-appropriate, from my father’s bookcase since the fourth grade) and have found Tolkien’s style less wordy and dry than 90% of the British writers I had read up until then. He was an Oxford professor of linguistics with a fascination of the Nordic sagas (which, btw, actually are much more convoluted that his own work). Being a lover of the English language, I was captivated by the languages he invented as much as I was the world he created. I enjoyed reading mythologies from all over the globe, which in many cases were quite dry themselves, having been written by professors as well, although not for entertainment. Considering his educational background and occupation, his style made sense to me and I spoken Elvish fluently by the time I graduate high school. I even wrote a thesis in collage on his work.

Now, all that being said, I adore Peter Jackson’s movies and am waiting with baited breath for bits of the Silmarrillion and the Lost Tales of Numenor to find their way to the screen. As you say, he did a masterful job making Tolkien’s classic stories into a form that would be exciting and marvelously cohesive for modern audiences. He ignored many of the stories that Tolkien included that didn’t make sense even to his adoring fans. The story of Tom Bombadil springs immediately to mind. And, as you mention, he gave depth to the characters that few outside of we Tolkien Nerds could get out of the books. In essence, Jackson took the stories from those four books and expanded upon them, using details included in his own readings of the Silmarrillion and Lost Tales to help flesh out the characters and back stories of all the peoples of Middle Earth. If he hadn’t used those elements, which are sprinkled like fairy dust throughout the movies, Peter Jackson’s work might have ended up like so many other attempts to put Tolkien’s work in movie/television formats — only one section finished and pretty well detested by Tolkien fans. I am not alone in considering Peter Jackson the other half of Tolkien’s coin. He is as much a master of his media as Tolkien was, and was also a fluent reader of all of Tolkien’s work. The difference, I think, is simply that he speaks his audiences language as well as he understands Tolkien’s. Thank God for Peter Jackson! And thank you for an honest opinion. I suspect most of those who complained of Jackson’s treatment of the books really didn’t understand all of what Tolkien wrote. They simply worshipped Tolkien for the world he created and they couldn’t see the forest for the trees. But then I believe their biggest flaw is that most of them never attempted to write a story in his genre that would appeal to a larger audience than just Tolkien Nerds.

Cheri, thank you so much for your response. I am very glad that someone who has such extensive knowledge about Tolkien, can appreciate the films and understand the magnificent job Jackson did in bringing that story to the public, and clarifying a story that as you said, “only Tolkien nerds,” could understand.

Tolkien’s stories hold a special place for you, that I see. Thank you for your kind words, and measured response. Take care.